issue121彻底推翻自己 重写的 也不知道理由充不充分 恳请大侠指教！

kingjfUID: 2121606

上午写了这个题目 发现自己的每个理由都可以驳倒 异常郁闷 于是从反面重新写了一遍 现在自己都不知道理由充不充分  恳请大侠指教！

另问：我现在写来写去觉得开头要么就是提问，要么就直接拿出观点，没什么新东西。开头结尾都写得不好， 请问有什么解决办法？写也写得不少了，自己觉得长进不大， 大侠能不能指导一下？

121"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."


Is human being responsible for extinction of species? What is the limit of human efforts to protect the endangered species? As far as I am concerned, though mankind should make necessary efforts to save the endangered species, we need not go too far.

To begin with, I will define what I mean in saying "go too far". To save the endangered species, of course, some efforts are needed, such as enacting laws of protecting species and setting up natural preservation areas. In addition, we should take pains to improve the environment, because pollutions, global climate warming, acid rain, and other kinds of harms to the environment change the speed of normal transforms of nature, which may lead to sudden extinction of some species and cause chain effects. Then do not only endanger other species’ habitats, but also ourselves’.   All these efforts are within human ability. However, there is one way now taken by some countries to save the endangered species. They reproduce species in the laboratories and then put them back to the nature. This measure indeed is ineffective and takes up the limited resources. Therefore, efforts like that are "extraordinary".

Why would I claim that reproducing species in labs and then putting them back to the nature is unproductive? Because they contradict the natural laws and are destined to fail. Why do we call these species endangered? Because they cannot adapt to the nature and are likely to extinct. Some may argue that extinction of a species may cause a domino effect, which means that many other species that depend on it may be affected and even extinct. However, this argument is groundless, since the species’ inability of adapting to the nature is not caused by a sudden force, such as human's deforestation, but by the long natural selection. Those species that depend on them should have changed their living habits--such as that they no longer mainly feed on a particular species and depend on the living environment created by a special tree, otherwise, these species cannot exist and should be called endangered species, either. Nature chooses the winner that can adapt to it and eliminates those that cannot. To put back species reproduced by mankind to nature is just a waste of money, since they cannot live long and are destined to extinct. If they can exist, they can without man's efforts--of course not due to mankind’ "intentional" destroy such as pollution. Therefore, we should obey natural laws and leave the fates of some endangered species to natural trial.

Some may still argue that some species have values related to science, history, sociology, aesthetic, etc. Yes, I admit that. But perhaps the solution is that we could choose those most valuable ones and reproduce them just in laboratories. For example, some believe panda is "living fossil", by studying which we may better understand the origin of species. Then, we could reproduce them in labs and study them. When it comes to some species’ potential medical value, experts maintain that some organs of the endangered species perhaps could cure the most stubborn cancer. If they distinct, we may never find a way to deal with such kind of cancer. But think about the great cost to maintain a species’ existence by human. We should take into account all aspects of its existence, from the adequate habitats to affluent food, to the potential dangers that they will face. We may even have to constrict another species’ number. However, have we cared enough about our own existence, as a species? Many people go without enough food, without jobs and without basic survival skills, do we pay much attention to that? Therefore, what we do to save the endangered species should be limited to our abilities and some species may only exist in the labs.

To sum up, to protect the endangered species, we should try our best not to destroy the habitats of species and not to disobey natural laws to maintain their existence in nature. When it comes to some valuable species, they may only be kept in the labs.

TaylorUID: 147672

Originally posted by kingjf at 2005-8-24 18:52
上午写了这个题目 发现自己的每个理由都可以驳倒 异常郁闷 于是从反面重新写了一遍 现在自己都不知道理由充不充分  恳请大侠指教！

另问：我现在写来写去觉得开头要么就是提问，要么就直接拿出观点，没什么新东 ...

开头就是要摆观点，开门见山。想要免俗，只能在句式上下下功夫，但是点题亮观点是不能免得。结尾就是要把前文的论点再叙述一遍，扣题总结。只不过换个表达方式。所以只需要准备好自己的开头结尾的套用句式就够了，内容上不需要挖空心思。

另外，楼主进入了一个误区，我觉得。不要去找一个没有人可以驳倒的理由，ETS不考这个。一个恰当的理由固然重要，人家主要看的是，对于你给出的理由，是否能够给出严密的论证，是否能够自圆其说。
我觉得几乎不存在一个驳不倒的理由，毕竟事情没有绝对的，从另一个方面来论证，一个看似正确的观点可以把它说成是错的。包括楼主给出的理由，很容易被驳倒。
所以我觉得，楼主应该把精力放在如何增强每一段的论证力度上。

第二个自然段，其实是一个解释自己主题句的段落，没有起到论证的作用。觉得应该精简，可以跟开头并在一起。后面的两个论证的段子倒应该重点再突出一些。
文章语言还好。
关于论证，多看看范文，多写写会更好。
个人意见，仅供参考：）